About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 89 (615 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
544

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Antonini 6, Us 3, Fong 3, Mr. Wang 3, Wiener 2, Larkin 2, Olague 2, Moore 2, Campos 1, Mta 1, California 1, Ms. Ma 1, Ceqa 1, Ian Birchel 1, Wu 1, Glenn 1, Chiu 1, Lee 1, Antonini Svttledz 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV2    [untitled]  

    December 20, 2012
    12:30 - 1:00pm PST  

12:30pm
portion and that is wrong, because it is a split level house. the back portion goes up five to six feet, and they are anticipating a -- going down and to keep the -- the roof levels adjacent to one another, they say they will be the same, but they'll have to be going down about 10 feet under that building to get into the foundation of their own building. so there's quite a concern. and i have not seen any soils study or engineering reports as to whether or not this is feasible, and what the consequence of it will be. there's a couple of side notes is that this house -- the proposed house is two to three times of the square footage of what is there now.
12:31pm
and although they accommodate us because initially they wanted to build it wall-to-wall, the house set back about three feet in the -- in between the two buildings. but it's so large that the house on -- we are on the west of the house that's contemplated. and it will totally keep us in darkness because it is so large that it's just -- covers up from the front to the back. if the setback is -- remains -- goes back to 10 feet, the whole front of it will be in the shade, particularly up until noon because of the eastern exposure, will be totally covered. i thank you for your time and that's my comments.
12:32pm
>> president fong: is there additional public comment? seeing none, public comment portion is closed. commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: i'd like to put to the record that this is a mandatory discretionary review, and the issues, which the residential design team has addressed are those typically addressed in a mandatory discretionary review. i want to say that i think the review is extremely thorough, creative, and supportive of those ideas that are important to us as a commission. i want to comment taking it down from the top, the 15 foot setback from the street is something which this commission has asked the department to consistently implement. it's not 11 feet. it's not 12 feet. it's 15 feet where it occurs on the street side of a property which is larger than two stories, because this particular
12:33pm
setback should not be seen from the front. so it's really not an issue to question, but just to accept because this commission has used this rule and over the years had the department strong implement the same 15 feet wherever that type of condition occurs. on the second one, regarding the garage door, that is also a guideline which this commission consistently supports when a facade of a residential building has, as its main feature, a garage, we do not want to look like suburbia but we want to keep the width of the garage typically at 10 feet in order to deemphasize that indeed the garage is an element we accept, however the door itself cannot be larger. that is, again, a rule which is consistently applied. now comes the question about the
12:34pm
massing of the building. we have an existing building of roughly 1700 square feet as mr. wang gives us here a rundown in its chart on the first page. and it's something which is supposed to be enlarged to something which is in the 4600 square feet, rounding it off to the number which is in front of me. this is a huge, huge, huge increase in an r2 zoning district when indeed a single family house is just simply replaced by a single family house. that is a huge increase and i do understand that there is a growing family, a multi-generational setting but it's still a large house. and that is i think, when we all strongly have to consider compatible massing with what is there. and i believe that the recommendations the department makes are very sensitive. i personally believe, from a usefulness point of view, that option a, i think, where we're
12:35pm
talking about an eight foot setback allows the two bedrooms to happen, turned sideways and accessed from the side, from the corridor is a very creative and reasonable solution. so i am in full support of the department's recommendation, and just want to hear what the other commissioners have to say. >> president fong: commissioner antonini svttledz i know a couple -- >> commissionecouple -- >> commissioner antonini: a couple of speakers spoke about soundness during the construction process. this is an issue that has to do with department of building inspection. the project sponsor, in this sort of building, is responsible to make sure the shoring is adequate, that no damage is done to any of the adjacent properties. and that is not really an issue that we have control over here. it's something that needs to be taken up with during the
12:36pm
permitting process. and it routinely is. and that would be mandatory that shoring be adequate and there be no adverse effects on adjacent properties from the excavation or anything else that's being done. in regards to the project itself, i think it's a very well-done. the house is extremely contextural, if you look at the renderings of the new building it fits in beautifully with the homes on the street, that unfortunately doesn't happen enough, and i think it's an example what can be done architecturally to make a home look like it belongs in a neighborhood it goes into. the issue seem to be the three things staff brought up. my question, in regards to -- i'm looking at the picture here. it doesn't look like that garage door is that onerous-looking.
12:37pm
mr. wang, you want to go from 12 feet to 10 feet? is that what the change is here you're suggesting? >> that is correct, commissioner antonini. >> commissioner antonini: this view is a little bit oblique. the other question i have is that there is a little bit of an elevation on this, and sometimes if the garage door isn't wide enough, it's difficult when you try to get your car in there. i don't know. i may ask the project sponsor's attorney a question in just a the setback issue that would be on the second floor, is that correct, mr. wang, where we want the setback on the second floor. >> it is on the top floor, the third floor. >> commissioner antonini: third, rather. second floor above the garage, garage being the first floor which does go down the hill quite a ways too.
12:38pm
okay. i don't really see that as much of an impact as i do the rear setback you're advocating for because it seems to me that even in its present position, the third floor setback does not have too much of an impact on the adjacent property but the rear of the building might have more of an impact. so i would be more interested in -- maybe i could ask project sponsor's attorney about the suggestions in the rear. there's been the talk about notching this out, these corner or bringing the whole rear wall back eight feet and there seems to be some sympathy on the commission to accept those. is there a preference that you would have, if it is decided that one of these two actions are taken? >> if i could, commissioner, i could show you a photo at the rear, that will illustrate the point we're trying to make about the side setback and the loss of
12:39pm
light or air. so this shows the relationship of ma's house to the current structure. the proposal is to bring it back to this retaining wall which is the same depth as all the neighboring buildings, exeft except ma's home. the fact because ms. ma's home is at a lower elevation there really is no significant impact on the light that comes into the property and that's what the shadow analysis we provided shows. most of the rear is shaded already by this fence. and by bringing it back, and then by notching it out the way we've proposed, the shadow analysis we've done shows there really subject a significant impact on light and air. on your specific question i would need to check with the project sponsor about which of those two proposals would be the least onerous to them but we really think that the way we
12:40pm
adjusted it first with the three foot setback and then with the additional three foot setback on the top floor we're preserved the light to that property. >> commissioner antonini: how do you feel about the suggestions about the garage door and the setback in the front? >> they'd like the wider garage door because it is a big family and they have a minivan and they want to get in and out. i understand what commissioner moor is saying about the policy there. on the front they have brought it back and that additional three feet on the one side helps with the flow of the design and helps preserve ability to have the number of bedrooms they ne need.
12:41pm
>> commissioner antonini: i would entertain perhaps some modification to the rear area, to allow a little more light and air to that back door, although make a good point that a lot of it is already shaded because of the topography. >> so i'm not an expert in residential design but i feel there's importance to adhere to the residential guidelines. i think the bedrooms look fairly large in size
12:42pm
12:43pm
12:44pm
12:45pm
12:46pm
12:47pm
12:48pm
12:49pm
we will be calendaring a public discussion of that item i believe on the 10th of january. but it was a productive meeting yesterday. >> thank you for that update. any additional comments,
12:50pm
questions? >> commissioners, under the director arizona report, item 6, director's announcements. >> commissioners in the interest of time i think i will pass. i don't have anything urgent to report, but other than to wish you happy holidays. >> item 7, review of the past events of the past week. >> good afternoon, commissioners this. week at land use commission there were a couple of designations and both nominations were reviewed by the historic preservation commission earlier this year and this week at committee members of the public spoke in support of each. there was no opposition. and they were both recommended for approval to the full board. there is also a hearing on the western edition, after the redevelopment agency. this was at the request of supervisor olague. the planning department was the only city agency to attend the hearing and staff presents
12:51pm
supervisor olague's proposal to create the fillmore street neighborhood commercial district. several members of public spoke about this. this was an informational item, so no action was taken. at the full board hearing, supervisor campos allowing use. you considered this item at your november 29th hearing. this week the board approved it on first reading. on second and final read before thing board was the tdif update to article 4. introduced by mayor lee and sponsored by supervisors olague and wiener. this commission considered the ordinance. and you recommended approval with the modifications, the mayor included all of the modifications in the ordinance. last week supervisor elsbernd
12:52pm
successfully added an exemption on non-profits of you heard the california medical center's eir was continued until january of next year and there was an appeal of a categorical exemptionion for the mta's bikeway projects. the mta approved this project. and the town's concerns included topics such as traffic, pedestrian safety, loading of emergency vehicle access, air quality parking and the cumulative analysis. it did cover all of these topics and since the project would not have a significant impact. at the hearing some supervisors questioned if the appellant's concerns were not ceqa-related, but rather on the merits of project.
12:53pm
supervisor elsbernd commented this was a wonderful example of why it should be adopted since the appellant's issues had nothing to do with ceqa concerned. and lastly a new ordinance sponsor by board president chiu that changing the copy on a sign should not be treated as a new sign. so this will be before you in the next three months that. concludes my report. >> thank you. commissioner wu. >> thank you. i wanted to ask on the tdif, i understand that supervisor wiener will be convening meets and you can give us updates on the broad direction of those
12:54pm
meetings. >> we can do that, thank you. >> the board of appeals did meet last night and one item of note was a re-hearing request for building permit application dealing with glenn canyon park and before the hearing the request was withdrawn and the decision became final and the building permit is approved. just wanted to inform the commission on that and there are no other reports. >> commissioners, under item 814601 larkin street, informational, current status of the project design. >> good afternoon president fong and members of commission. i am going to keep my comments very brief here. the subject property was considered in june of 2010 and june of this year for proposal
12:55pm
to demolish the church. this commission cited concerns no. 1 about the demolition of the existing church which is considered an historic resource under ceqa, but also to do with what i would collective call the compatibility. the project sponsor has been working collaboratively with planning department staff and with representatives of the community in an attempt to address staff concerns, community members concerns and issues raised by this commission at previous hearings. so i will turn it over to the project sponsor to address the specific ways in which the project has evolved and is continuing to evolve.
12:56pm
thank you very much. i am available for questions. good afternoon commissioners and president, my name is ian birchel and represent the project sponsor and i would like to present the late design that we have developed with significant input from members of community and neighbors. it's been an intense and collaborative effort since june. we have changed the project, as well as changing the design. it's not being just about the shape of the building, the color of materials, or the height or the setback. it's also been about considerations for community, neighbors, and an open
12:57pm
discourse between project sponsor and the community. one of the first things that we did was to try to address the issue of thekin condition of the church on the exterior and address concerns of neighbors with respect to safety, cleanliness, maintenance of the exterior. once we established a line of communication there, and did some needed things, lighting, barriers, we were then able to move forward and begin to talk about the design, which i would like to share with you. i would also like to thank the community, the neighbors. the neighborhood association, who have worked very, very hard, and have been very committed and resilient.
12:58pm
liz representing 1630 clay owners, extremely helpful, cooperative, and in essence making us listen to what you had to say and what they had to say. so with that i would like to move forward with the show. yellow boundary around the church. next please. context. we have seen these before. next. i'm not going to try to read these to you. they are in your package, but they are basically issues brought up bit community, by the commission and by individuals and our responses to them. next, please. the last one on this list here addresses bmr units. we are proposing two on-site,
12:59pm
bmr units and one in-lieu fee. next, please. i would like to look here. this is kind of like describing the result of the process over the last six months. the major design revisions on the left are all of the parking goes into one basement, with one garbage -- garage entrance. the height has been reduced one full story, and it's actually down to 53'. the mapping along clay, adjacent to 1630 clay. four story against four story the same is true of the larkin. it was at one time a gap that wa

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)